Talk:Englerophytum magalismontanum

Size of images

Hi Ezeu, my feeling about botanical articles (and some other categories) is that users would like to see the various aspects of the subject without having to click on each thumbnail. The gallery template, while useful, does not seem to fit the needs of this article. Putting the images on either side of the article does not seem to be unaesthetic. Let me know how you feel. Paul venter 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As it is now, one can barely see the text because the images are so overbearingly large. Wikipedia is first and foremost a text encyclopedia. Images are meant to compliment the articles, not the other way round. --Ezeu 17:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that the images make the text more difficult to read - perhaps it's the psychological effect of seeing something different from the normal. Is it Wikipedia policy to favour text over images? I haven't come across that guideline yet, but I would find it a strange policy to support without adjusting to the needs of an article. A discussion of the Mona Lisa say, or Whistler's Mother would be very difficult if there were no image to accompany the text - in fact, the text would really be secondary to the painting. "A picture is worth a thousand words"? Paul venter 20:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for submitting the good pictures. But I have to agree with Ezeu, inasmuch they shouldn't obscure the text as they do now. They should be a supplement to the text, and a gallery is one way of doing it. JMK 00:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)